Saturday, January 24, 2015

"Considering a long, bloody
history of Manifest Destiny noted for the slaughter of “savages” and the
lawless, violent spirit of places like Deadwood, South Dakota, during the gold
rush, D.H Lawrence characterized “the essential white America” this way: “The
essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer.” In 1973,
Richard Slotkin wrote a now-famous book on the mythology of the American
frontier called Regeneration Through Violence."

On Jan 23, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Paul wrote:

Not sure why anyone would limit the quotation to
"white America," seems to apply to every corner of the world to me.
–P

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Peter Schultz wrote:

I am imaging, as this was written in a review of
"American Sniper," which seems to be playing great popularity, and
given that the US has been labeled, “the United States of Amnesia,” that the
quote seemed especially applicable here. But, of course, I could be
wrong.

On Jan 23, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Paul wrote:

Did you see American Sniper?

We human beings are particularly good at spilling
blood for all manner of reasons. --Paul

My response:

Yes, I did. And of course you are correct about human beings, but
what is at issue here, as I understand it, is the American capacity to spill
blood while playing the victims, ala’ the aftermath of 9/11, and other attacks
on us while ignoring their sources in our policies that embrace an
all-too-willingness to kill or try to annihilate those we deem our “enemies” or
those just in need of some “education” about “democracy!"

American Sniper is as good a piece of propaganda for this mindset as
I can imagine. Americans are beset by the “savages” in Iraq for no apparent
reason, other than their “savageness” - but we, the USA is not savage, and this
despite the fact we invaded a nation that had not attacked us or threatened to,
which resulted in the deaths of thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of
Iraqi civilians. [Of course, the movie’s scene prior to seeing the sniper join
the Navy Seals is of 9/11, but no mention is made that Iraq had anything to do
with that.] So, what appears in this story, is a story of American soldiers
being attacked savagely by those defending evil Muslims who just “hate us.” It
is, once one remembers that our invasion and occupation of Iraq was pure
imperialism, based on lies told even by the president, a most astounding
retelling of what happened.

And now bumper stickers are being sold that say, “God bless our
troops! Especially the snipers!” sometimes followed by a cross. Sounds and
looks like a Christian crusade to me. And I must say, to make this situation
just another manifestation of “human nature” reminds me of what my mother said
to me, a long time ago, when I asked about a priest in our hometown, who had
been removed from our parish because of some sexual “indiscretion:” “Peter,
priests are just men.” Wow, OK, I got it: Men are pedophiles or sexual deviants
and, therefore, “all was good” or, at least, normal. No wonder the church got
away with its facilitation of pedophilia for so long.

“Oh well, Peter, we human beings are good at killing so, hey, relax,
man. Besides, the Pats are in the Super Bowl again! All is good here or, if it
isn’t, it is all ‘normal.’” Tell me, when does our being particularly good at
killing, and killing apparently in the name of religion, reach a point where
you might be concerned? As you can tell, I have reached that point
already……but, of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps “it is all good.”

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Here is an email
exchange with a friend and former student. Seems worth publishing here.

On Jan 17, 2015, at 4:44 PM, email sent:

PS-

First, I want to clarify what I meant by my
post....liberal class in the way that Chris Hedges would say it--a privileged
group of white people who wish to balance a genuine concern for equality,
social justice, etc with a comfortable life within the economic paradigm they
claim to critique (not pejoratively like a Republican) . Though I too am
concerned with bigotry, I just hope the liberal response is honest enough about
the real threats posed by the public display of religion in general,
never mind one based on a capricious deity, who was willing to be violent
to gain submission. It seems that though all religions can be debased, Islam's
debasement can be especially bad for everybody.

The Oklahoma City bomber was Christian in the sense
that he liked social control that a certain modern interpretation of
Christian morality provides, but he was a decidedly political actor. The
Unabomber gets a pass in some way because he had really good points (unlike
Muslims) he just carried out his protest poorly--not that an occupation link is
enough to morally require you to distinguish yourself, any more than a mailman
would have to explain why he's different than his "gone postal"
brethren.

I'm not sure if "Je Suis Charlie" or
not....I take the Pope's stand that the violence was horrendous, but that the
publication had long since passed the line of offensive and derision. I don't
want to align with either of them.

As for your remarks on the United States and fascism,
I couldn't agree more. I find no comfortable element of popular, conventional
culture to participate in. The Sniper movie is a perfect example....I can't
believe it's not being questioned, and I'm surprised A list "liberal"
Hollywood types are participating with clear minds.

I struggle with how to proceed with my young boys. If
i want them to succeed in the conventional sense I'll have to dilute the
intensity of my views, but I'm only so good at compromising in that way....One
thing's for sure, there's no coming back from this. Even if we suspend the
economic decline with last minute down the road can kicking, we are culturally
moribund.

Be well, and enjoy the what I assume is the freedom of
your retirement. All the best,

My response:

Interesting and thoughtful. But I am uncertain of some things. (1)
Did you mean to say that Islam has no "really good points" as did the
Unabomber? As you write of Islam's "debasement" I am assuming you did
not.

(2) Is your reference to "a capricious deity, who was willing
to be violent to gain submission" a reference to Catholicism or Islam or
both? Seems to me that a religion that flaunts a bloody crucifixion as its
central image fits this description rather well, as violence comes in many
forms. Or is this a reference to Judaism and the rather violent capricious
deity it worships, ala' the Old Testament? This may be wrong but if you mean to
single out Islam as a violent religion with a capricious deity, then I must say
I remain unpersuaded, that is, to it being uniquely or uniquely different than
Christianity or Judaism. Religion and violence go together very well, as
Machiavelli might say, while pointing out that religion does not know how to
properly, that is, proportionately, use violence or disguise it by
"civilizing" it. Our revealed religions all seem to be
"willing to be violent to gain submission" on behalf of a
"capricious deity." [And did you really mean to describe the
Unabomber's actions as a "protest" conducted "poorly?" I describe
him, as I describe those who killed in Paris, as murderers, plain and simple.]

One issue is: Is there a campaign that is anti-Islamic? Note: I
don't think the issue is an academic one, Is Islam more or less violent than,
say, Christianity? This is an issue but not a pressing one, it seems to me,
because it is one that is being used for political purposes, to justify and
fortify US imperialism especially in the Middle East, as well as the
totalitarian-like measures such as the Patriot Act and the actions of the NSA.
And, of course, as should be all too obvious today, politicians and other
political actors like the media are willing to use academics and academic
arguments to their advantage. It is interesting to me how so many academics
don't get this and actually think they are in charge, when in fact they are
merely pawns.

You may criticize the examples used by the wife of a friend but she
stated the issue, at least for me: Is our solidarity directed at Islam, ala'
Boston and Paris? Let me say that I find the Boston bombing most illustrative
here or rather the reaction to it revealing: The "attack" was
relatively minor, but the city was shut down (!), the hysteria was remarkable,
and some things very revealing such as the fact that the date of the bombing
did not become the number used in connection with the mantra, "Boston
Strong," as that would detract from what was clearly the intentional use
of "9/11" to describe "ground zero" in NYC. [The original
"ground zero" was in Nagasaki and Hiroshima!] Rather, the number
used, which seemed comedic to me, was "617" or the area code for
Boston! Of course, this number faded from view as it made no sense at all.

And then again, here is something that has struck me recently: Why
is it that when a fundamentalist, born again Christian like George Bush - a
description he embraced during the campaigns willingly and frequently, saying
that his Christianity defined him, even "saved" him, and played a
role in his "deciding" - wages a war that kills thousands, even
hundreds of thousands of civilians, as happened in Iraq, a war he called "
a crusade," he is not described as a born again, fundamentalist Christian?
Whereas when any Muslim kills, even when they kill a relatively few people,
they are described as "Muslims" and we go looking for that allegedly
intricate and cunningly hidden "network" of "Muslim
terrorists?" You may say Bush was " a decidedly political actor"
but when he spoke of "eradicating evil" or of "a crusade"
he is revealing the importance of his religion and its impact on his
"deciding." But it could be said of those we label
"terrorists" are acting in "a political capacity." And if
attacking the "World Trade Centers" and the Pentagon - and trying to
get the White House or the Congress - isn't political, I don't know what is as
those are political targets. They did not, e.g., target churches as some,
especially in Europe, have targeted mosques. And bin Laden was opposed to our
policies, e.g., stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. And, more generally,
opposing policies seems pretty political to me and yet, again, it is his
religion which receives top billing, while Bush's religion does not. This
"story," that our politicians act from non-religious motives or that
their religion does not facilitate violence serves a political purpose, namely,
it facilitates and strengthens our imperialism, at least among those who reject
Bush's fundamentalist, born again religion. And, of course, this allows Bush to
appeal to both the religious and the non-religious while propagandizing that it
is only "some" Muslims who are "savages." He only needs to
condemn "some" to condemn all, ala' the frequently heard refrain that
"Muslims need to stop Muslims from committing violence/'terrorism'!"

So, yes, I do agree with the wife of a friend: The solidarity we are
urged to embrace is against Islam. [And your email kind of confirms this when
you say, as many have said, that Charlie Hebdo is hardly a unifying force; in
fact, it's agenda is to disrupt while "dissing" the downtrodden, the
despised. I am not Charlie, no thanks. And if it disappeared today, the world
would be a much improved place. It could hardly support a rally for
solidarity.]

And, more generally, this sounds to me like a replay of the rhetoric
used during the Cold War against communism. I have heard it all before only
then it was "Kill a commie for Christ." Now, it is, although
disguised, "Kill a Muslim for Christ." A newsperson on Fox News
actually said we have to "Kill, kill, kill!" and there was no doubt
she was referring to Muslims. Truly astounding.

I went to see "American Sniper" and it was more of the
same. It was such good propaganda that even Chris Kyle's description of the
Iraqis as "savages" seemed to make sense. But then if one remembered
that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that it had never attacked the US, that
it in fact had been an ally once, that it had no WMDs as claimed, you had to
ask, "Who is more savage, the insurgents in Iraq or the US?" Is it
more savage to kill a young boy with a drill [the insurgents] or blowing him to
bits with a drone or missile? Both seem pretty savage to me. And if you wish
to, watch a movie entitled "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," about
Ireland and the IRA in the 1920s and you can see how American troops in Iraq
acted just like the Brits did in Ireland in those days and how the IRA acted
like the insurgents in Iraq. And I would bet the Brits attributed the
IRA's "savagery" to Catholicism.

Retirement is great. I can read what I want. So glad I quit when I
did. I am glad to see you and Tina prospering together. It is never easy to
live with a Yankee fan from Jersey.......so it is good that you are a Sox fan
without strong opinions! ;-) Your children will do fine despite you and my
prediction is: When you express your opinions, at least while they are teenagers,
they will sneer at you........and this is good and should not surprise you. As
my mother use to say, "the fruit don't fall too far from the
tree!"

“Well, you know, the killings in Paris of those cartoonists
and others.”

“So, you think they did that because they were Muslims?”

“Of course I do. Don’t you?”

“Well, I am sure that’s part of it. But what about George
Bush’s invasion of Iraq?”

“What do you mean? I don’t get it.”

“Did he do that because he’s a born again Christian? After
all, he did use the word ‘crusade.’”

“Well, I didn’t think of it that way.”

“Why not? You didn’t have any trouble thinking of the Paris
killers as Muslims, did you? But you didn’t think of Bush, when he was waging a
war which took the lives of hundreds of thousands Iraqis and which he called a
‘crusade’, as a ‘Christian .’ That seems strange to me.”

Conversation #9

Heard January 15, 2015

“Yesterday, you implied that Bush’s Christianity should be
recognized as important.”

“Yes, indeed, I did. Why do you ask?”

“Well, because Christians don’t go around shooting
cartoonists, even those that might blaspheme about Christ or Christianity.”

“Yes, indeed they don’t. But what of it?”

“What do you mean, what of it? That shows the difference
between Islam and Christianity.”

“No, they don’t. They don’t have to shoot cartoonists when
they can invade entire countries, bomb them into submission, and remove and
even slay their rulers. It is only the relatively powerless who have to kill
cartoonists, just as it is only the relatively powerless who have to use
suicide bombers. Christians like Bush don’t have to use such bombers; they have
B2 bombers and drones. Which makes me ask you again: Why don’t you see Bush as
a Christian when he kills people but you do see ‘terrorists’ as Muslims when
they kill people?’

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Here
is a sentence taken from an editorial in the NY Times, which of course has been
read or heard in many places since the killings in Paris:

“A terrorist attack on the French
satirical weekly is an assault on freedom everywhere.”

Well,
if in fact the attack in Paris is “an assault on freedom everywhere,” does this
mean that the regime in Saudi Arabia is also an assault on freedom everywhere?
Or does it mean that the regime in Uzbekistan is an assault on freedom
everywhere? Or does it mean that the regime in Egypt is an assault on freedom
everywhere? And does it mean that when the US government fails to respect the
freedom of the press by trying to convict journalists and others who publish
stuff the government does not want published, e.g., the Pentagon Papers or
Snowden’s revelations, that this is an assault on freedom everywhere?

In
other words, what makes for “an assault on freedom everywhere?” Or is it to be
assumed that when governments assault freedom this is not an assault on freedom
everywhere? And if this is the assumption we are being encouraged to make, then
this is a very strange situation indeed.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Below are
links to two articles on what appear to be diverse topics. One is entitled,
“The GOP’s Grand Con Job: Why Its Cynically Scheming to Dupe the 1%.” And the
other is entitled, “Elizabeth Warren’s Surprising Compliment: Why Comparisons
to Ted Cruz are Good.” But although
they seem to be devoted to different issues, they address the same issue: Who
got the power, politicians or the 1%?

Now, of
course, it would be foolhardy to make this an either/or choice, but it is not
foolhardy to wonder if the conventional wisdom that it is the politicians who
are in the service of those with the money is as accurate as it claims to be.

In the
article on Warren and Cruz, the author argues that such a comparison, made
after Warren “named names” in the Senate when she said “Responding
Citigroup’s complaints about financial reform, “let me say this to anyone who
is listening at Citi [group]. I agree with you Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It
should have broken you into pieces!” As Parton says in her article:

“That’s unusual. The millionaires club also
known as the Senate is an unlikely place to hear anyone call out a major
banking institution by name and declare that it should be broken into pieces,
especially one that one they allowed to write legislation to loosen
regulations. One simply doesn’t air the Senate’s dirty laundry that way.”

And
so, Warren aroused the ire of some pundits, who was labeled “the Ted Cruz of
the left.” Parton’s argument was two fold: First, this is just an insane
comparison, as evidenced by Cruz’s comparison of those who refuse to overturn
Obamacare to those who supported or acquiesced in Hitler’s rule. But, second,
she points out that this comparison is “good” because it underlines that
Warren, like Cruz, has power and she has power because she “derives [her] power
[not] from cozy relationships with big business but from [her] cozy
relationship to average people.” And as Parton notes, this is ‘a grave threat
to the system they’ve [the establishment] spent so much money to create for
themselves.”

This
illustrates something that is too often overlooked, viz., that for those with
money to be able to control politicians, it is required that politicians go
along with the ruse that they are in the thrall of those with money. And for
this arrangement to become “a system” requires that it be accepted by almost
all politicians and not spoken of because otherwise, when politicians appeal to
the people and openly point out the collusion between the moneyed and the
powerful, that collusion is almost bound to fail. Warren and Cruz both
illustrate this.

And
then when you read the piece by Elias Isquith’s on Boehner, you learn that
despite reports that “Boehner claim that he’d like to use his new power to
strike a deal with President Obama to cut social insurance spending and raise
taxes,” this is not really what is going on. What is actually going on,
according to Isquith, is that Boehner and his allies are holding out the promise
of such “a grand bargain” in order to keep the 1% in their camp so they, the
1%, will fund the Republicans’ attempt to win the White House in 2016. As
Isquith puts it:

“Boehner and company are fully aware
that the chances of them doing “big things” between now and January of 2017 are
slim-to-none. At the same time, they know that they’ll only be able to enact
major policy changes if a Republican wins the next White House race and if the
GOP maintains control over both the House and the Senate. And, crucially, they
know that they won’t be able to do any of those things unless they continue to
benefit from the 1 percent’s unprecedented political largesse. So what other
option does that leave them than to humor the business class’s desire for a
grand bargain and immigration reform while keeping those fundraising pitches
coming?”

So,
it is the 1% who are being manipulated or used by the politicians and not the
other way round, according to Isquith.

I
would offer two emendations to Isquith’s argument. First, I would emphasize
more than he does that Boehner and his allies are most concerned, not with
winning the White House in 2016, but with protecting their own positions of
power. So, by “failing” to strike “a grand bargain” and contending that such a
bargain is just not doable now, they keep the insurgents in their own party in
check while appearing to bow to their wishes.

Second,
I am less certain than Isquith is that the Republicans like Boehner want to win
the White House “to enact major policy changes.” They are more concerned with
preserving the status quo and, hence, their own power than they are with
enacting major policy changes. To do that might feed the power of the
insurgents like Cruz, thereby displacing the establishment types like Boehner
and, as Parton pointed out in her piece on Warren, upsetting the well-established
and profitable apple cart. And this is why I am not persuaded that these establishment
Republicans worry all that much about not winning the White House in 2016. What
better to preserve the status quo than to extend our “divided” government for
another four years at least?

Still,
it interesting to find two pieces that illustrate the argument that it is the
politicians that are powerful and not merely oligarchs like the Koch brothers.
The latter need the help, the collusion of the former to maximize their power,
and the former are able, because they control the processes of governing, to
milk the latter for money while pretending to do their bidding. It is an
interesting situation.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Make no
mistake about it: Our “police state” is showing its colors. Here [link below] are
many of those labeled “New York’s Finest,” and even some police not from New
York, protesting Mayor de Blasio who was attending and speaking at a funeral of
one of the slain policemen in New York City recently.

In my mind,
there is nothing very important about the protest in itself, just as there is
nothing very important about most protests in our political order. Although not
many would agree, I think that protests solidify rather than undermine the
prevailing alignment of political forces. They might make the protesters feel
good, feel powerful, but what they demonstrate is their relative powerlessness.
As someone wrote somewhere, angry blacks protest, even violently at times,
while angry whites elect the likes of David Duke, Ronald Reagan, or George
Wallace. Who’s got the power? Not the protesters.

And I
believe these protests demonstrate the same phenomenon. Many are upset at the
police for their behavior but why? What does this protest demonstrate? That a
lot of the police don’t like de Blasio? Well, we knew that already. And what is
the effect of this protest? The police decide to make fewer arrests, as if that
demonstrated their power! Think about it: They demonstrate their power,
allegedly, by not using their power. Would that the Freikorp in Germany in the
1920s and 1930s had demonstrated their power this way. This seems to me to be
somewhat analogous to those who would “shut down government” as a way of
demonstrating their power, only to find out this tactic doesn’t work and that
they lose power in the bargain.

The police
think they are protesting de Blasio but, in fact, they are protesting, as all
protests do, the prevailing alignment of political forces. As a result, they
are demonstrating just how politically powerless they are. They can no more
change the basic alignment of forces in New York City by their “show of force”
than the American military could change the basic alignment of forces in
Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. To change that alignment requires political
action, not military or military-like actions. You would think that, after
several wars that seem to change very little, this would be obvious to more
people.

So, let the
police protest, just as other protesters should be allowed to protest. Neither
set of protesters are a threat to the prevailing political situation. Neither
is a threat to our “civil” society.

Friday, January 2, 2015

Below is an email exchange, continued this day from an earlier
exchange, parts of which might have already been posted here. But, as usual,
read from the bottom up if you wish to follow this exchange as it unfolded.

Of course, Matthew, what I wrote to P. G., which you are so kind as
to send with this email, helps explain why establishment Republicans would be
able to support Jeb despite his "relatively liberal stance on key
issues." That is, if they think it is beneficial to win back the
presidency. They also have little reason to fear a Hillary presidency so it
becomes a question for them, "what will it cost us within our own party to
support Jeb?" If the price is too high as they see it, unduly feeding the
insurgency, they will help to ensure that Jeb doesn't' get the nomination or,
if he does, that he loses the election. Illustration: Bob Dole's candidacy in
1996 when many Republicans, looking toward 2000 and perhaps knowing of
Clinton's dalliances ["inside the Beltway" is a small town in
actuality], did not support his campaign and were not sorry when he lost. They
rolled the dice that they could beat Gore and so did not have to support Dole,
who was never a favorite of the party's establishment.

As noted, when politics is conceived as a series of "policy
problems," and not as a contest over the "alignment of forces"
within a particular society, what results is a politics of the status quo. The
basic, underlying arrangement of political forces, whether the
"liberals" or the "conservatives" are in power, stays
essentially the same. This is why some people argue that for all of his
rhetoric indicating his "radicalness," that even FDR was essentially
in service to the status quo. This may go too far. But I am convinced that
LBJ's support of the war in Vietnam served the same purpose, and which is why I
am quite open to the argument that he would rather Nixon be president than
Humphrey. Behind the opposition to the war was an alternative politics that, if
successful, would have changed in basic ways the configuration of political
forces in this country. Riots in Chicago at the Democratic convention? Why even
those could be made to serve LBJ's purposes. Would Daley's police department
help? Why not? It probably wasn't even unpleasant for Daley to see the long
hairs beaten to pulps and it served the party's interests. Nixon won, but
despite all of this, only barely, illustrating that Johnson's fears for the
status quo were not unwarranted. Then, under the guise of pursuing peace, the
war continued and even intensified, while Nixon ended the draft, knowing that
this would quell much of the opposition to the war. And, of course, he was
smart enough to rely on bombing, not troops, to pursue the war and intensify
it. Many dying, you say? Hey, come on, we are all "realists" here and
we know you cannot make mayonnaise - or preserve the status quo - without
breaking some eggs. As many like to say, "Freedom isn't free!" Nor is
preserving the status quo!!

As Karp argued, it is one of the myths of our political system that
both parties want to win each and every election, regardless of how a win would
impact the power of prevailing and prevalent politicians. [Ask yourself why the
Republican Party in Massachusetts could find candidates that could win the
governorship but, allegedly, could not find candidates, Scott Brown the
exception that proves the rule, who could win in the legislature or in
Congress. Perhaps it is because the party did want to pay the price it would
have to pay to win those seats.] Once one sees this possibility, everything or
an awful lot changes in how we assess the actions of politicians. And, of
course, it is quite interesting how little attention is paid to a politics of
the status quo, despite the fact that preserving the status quo is one of the
most common political phenomenons. It is as if we want to believe that our
politicians are all seeking, not so much getting and/or maintaining power, but are all seeking to undertake basic changes whatever the impact of these changes on
their status. And, of course, in a political order that revolves around
"professional politicians," this status is not something to be
sneezed at, which is an argument for term limits.

As George Carlin said once: "What's all this
stuff about "same sex marriage? My wife and I have been the same sex ever
since and even before we were married. I don't get it."

On Oct 24, 2014, at 11:05 AM, MB wrote:

"The issue was same-sex marriage. The day
before, Bush in his State of the Union address had defended 'the sanctity of
marriage,' which was code for opposing legally sanctioned marriage between gay
couples. In an election year, it was an obvious appeal to Bush's
conservative base, a way of reminding them that whatever their misgivings about
his other policies, this was a president in tune with their social views"
(Baker 304).

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Peter Schultz ‪
wrote:

Apparently you have not understood what I wrote: I
said that "raising issues" is a peculiar kind of politics, an
elitist and disempowering kind of politics that human beings who are not awed
by their own intellectualism and the alleged intelligence of
"experts" and "analysts" reject.....and with very good
reasons, as these "experts" and "analysts" have failed time
and time again. You write back and reassert that we need to talk about
"the issues I raised." No, I don't and won't because were I to do
that I would be conceding the argument to you and, worse, conceding the worth
of the conventional wisdom which you are content to embrace in your
"issues" brand of politics.

On MSNBC the other day, Andrea Mitchell was
interviewing the woman running for governor in Texas, Wendy Davis, I think,
about an ad she had run featuring an empty wheelchair that pointed out how her
opponent had consistently favored as a judge the wealthy over the not wealthy
in law suits for damages for personal injuries against corporations, and this
after he had himself collected millions in a similar case - hence, the empty
wheelchair. Mitchell had her panties all in a bunch over the empty wheelchair
-"Oh, how insensitive!" - and then asked Wendy Davis whether this
issue was more important than the issue of access to abortions in Texas. I
yelled at the radio: "It's the same fucking 'issue,' you dumb ass!" I
am sorry to say that while Davis made the same point, she was too polite in her
response for my tastes.

This is what happens when you adopt an
"issues" brand of politics. Abortion, and, yes, even climate change,
ebola containment, and even economics get severed from the social and human
context in which they occur as if they were isolated phenomena the resolution
of which have no implications for the power relationships in our society. In
fact, this is one reason why an "issues" brand of politics is
popular: Because it allows us to ignore the very real power "imbalances"
that exist in our society and, thereby, perpetuates the status quo. The
Progressives embraced such a politics - as an alternative to what was then
called, appropriately, "populism" - because it would ensure their
right to govern, to rule over its all-too-many and all-too-unsavory immigrants
"flooding" the nation then and supporting those unsavory city
machines.

So, no, my argument is not "largely irrelevant
for the issues [you] raised." You just have to try to understand that your
brand of politics is peculiar, why it is peculiar, and why it is little more
than a front for preserving the status quo. Or to simplify: If you say
"A" and I say "B", you shouldn't say "A" again.
It doesn't get us anywhere.